Saturday, March 19, 2011


Just A Friendly Reminder: Please Shut The Hell Up

Imagine this:

It’s a dark and gloomy six in the morning. You’ve just gotten out of bed. You are fuzzy-headed, bleary-eyed, badly in need of coffee. You haven’t showered or dressed. You’re in your underwear, or pajamas.
Suddenly there’s a thunderous pounding on the door, and loud men are shouting something at you. Your heart lurches and the adrenaline jolts you. You open the door, and there is a team of FBI agents, guns prominently displayed in holsters, raid jackets open. They are large and aggressive and unfriendly. They tell you they have a search warrant for your home and push past you. Two of them grab you, bodily turn you around, and handcuff you. They’ll say later they had to do that to secure the scene and assure agent safety, and that you totally weren’t in custody or anything.

Two agents take you outside to your driveway in your pajamas or underwear. At this point your neighbors are beginning to peek curiously out of their windows. The agents push you into the back seat of a G-ride — a late-model American made sedan that smells of air freshener and despair. The two agents sit on either side of you in the back seat; a third agent climbs into the front seat. You shift uncomfortably, trying to avoid sitting on your handcuffed hands. But there’s no way to get comfortable sitting in your underwear in the back of a G-ride with your hands cuffed behind you.

The agents begin to question you about your business dealings. They don’t read you your rights first — they’ll say later they didn’t have to, because you totally weren’t in custody, despite being handcuffed in the back of a G-ride in your underwear surrounded by FBI agents in raid jackets. The agents tag-team you, switch topics rapidly, play good-cop-bad-cop, and use every law enforcement rhetorical trick to intimidate you. We have some really serious questions here, they say. But if you just cooperate, maybe we can clear all of this up.

(note: DMCA-whatever snip mandated by because the author wet himself that someone reposted his article... in his name with a link to his site.)

After a few uncomfortable hours, the agents uncuff you, pull you out of the car, and hand you an incomplete, inaccurate, and illegible receipt purporting to state what they’ve taken. They haul off boxes of documents, disks, disk drives, and whatever else catches their fancy. They’ll see you soon, they say.

And, relatively speaking, they do. Six months later you are indicted. You’re indicted not only for whatever matter the FBI was investigating. As a kicker, you’re also indicted under 18 U.S.C. section 1001 for lying to the FBI. That’s a felony. Your lawyer reviews the discovery, and tells you that when the FBI agents asked you whether you were at that meeting two years ago with Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, they already knew the answer to the question. Mr. Jones recorded the meeting and is cooperating with the FBI, and they had two other witnesses who placed you there. There was no chance whatsoever that your denial — whether it was a panic-induced brain fart, or a failure of memory, or a lie — could have misled or deterred the FBI in its investigation for even a moment. But that doesn’t matter. Though materiality is an element of Section 1001, it’s a weak, diluted type of materiality. Statements to the government are deemed material if they are the sort of statements that have the capacity to influence it. Courts have come very close to creating a presumption of materiality by reasoning that if the information were not material the government would not have asked for it and you wouldn’t have offered it. There was a time when most prosecutors thought it was chickenshit to charge someone with a felony for an exculpatory denial of wrongdoing that never fooled anyone; that time is in the past.

So. By failing to shut the fuck up, you have just handed the feds a gimme felony charge that will make your case much more difficult to defend.

When the authorities ask you questions, they are not out to “clear this thing up so we can let you go.” They are not your friends. They do not want to help. They are very likely not trying to learn anything or discover anything. They are trying to make, or improve, a case against you. They are hoping that you will fall into their trap. They may be trying to make a weak case strong or turn a lesser charge into a greater one.

(note: second DMCA-whatever snip mandated by because the author wet himself that someone reposted his article... in his name with a link to his site.  God did you actually spend time and money whining about someone who gave props to your advice?)
Don’t be a fool. If there’s a chance that cooperation will satisfy the authorities today, there will still be a chance in a day or a week or a month after you’ve consulted a lawyer who understands the situation. When you answer law enforcements’ questions — especially when you do it in a stressful situation like a search — you take grave risks of substantially worsening your situation. You may say, “oh, but I won’t lie.” Sure. But can you be sure, sitting cuffed in your underwear at six in the morning in that G-ride, that you will remember events from years ago accurately? Are you sure you won’t be confused and muddled under the circumstances? Are you sure that the government won’t — fueled by claims by cooperators — believe that you’ve lied? Do you really think that if you misremember or mix up events in your head or if your memory is different than the story of a cooperator, that the government is going to give you the benefit of the doubt?
Don’t be a fool. Invoke. For God’s sake, just shut up.

 (I'm not the loser, I didn't cry to a pack of bureaucratic jackals and spend money and time for your precious fucking "copyright".  God you're a fucking fool Ken.)


Ken said...

Pardon me, but copying the entire blog post and reposting it here is not fair use. Feel free to quote, but this is a copyright violation.

Tomas said...

Why are you stealing someone else's work to post here?

Lame as hell.

Anonymous said...

Ken, you were credited with the post. And your comments and advice were shared for widest distribution. I'd settle down and be happy with the fact that people are taking your advice.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I'd follow Ken's advice. Just sayin'. -Ansley

JoelKatz said...

This is *very* not okay.

J. Croft said...

Wow I'm just feeling that Patriot Unity here....

Ken, you have good advice but you're not the only person who has thought of shutting the hell up around the enemy. You just put it in different words is all. I quote full articles all the time and you are the FIRST to get their panties in a wad over it. Get over yourself, you're not Shakespeare.

Trust me Ken, I will NOT be quoting your douchebag ass again. Hang up your website and go back to watching American Idol or jacking off to child porn or taking turns fucking your mother or dog or whatever it is you do.

And as for Tomas-where's YOUR work? But I suppose having nothing's better than Joel Katz's lame ass excuse for a blog: "look at me I got four posts up so I kan rip on a Patriot trying to spread a good article! Hilk!"

God in Heaven you little bitch patriots, you keyboard minutemen are so fucking lame. I got zero-count em'-ZERO patience with you backstabbing little fucks. It's punks like y'all that blindly support Ron Paul as he embezzles you, expecting that putz on a white horse to solve all your problems. Meanwhile you kick back, write a few words or trade articles (NOT PASSING THEM ON IN FULL-GOD FORBID ANYONE DO THAT!)

Ansley knows what I'm talking about;)

I've been up in this since 2005-look to your right at my article index. You little snitch bitches got something to say to that, I'm right here.


J. Croft

Anonymous said...

Wow, stealing since 2005 and proud of it. Such a role model you are!

Repeated bad behavior does not make it correct behavior over time.

Anonymous said...

tagn I looked and almost all of the articles until 2010 were this bloggers. He/she only started posting articles then. I think J. Croft is a long winded and angry but sees things as they are.

J. Croft said...

tagn=NERD. What's the matter your world of warcraft subscription run out or something?

What have you done anyway?

Passerby said...

Hey, Ken: You've got shit on your chin. CLEAN IT OFF, DUMBSHIT, I SAID YOU'VE GOT SHIT ON YOUR CHIN.

Oh, you can't find your chin Ken. Brother and sister for four generations I see, right on back...

How's this, I'll explain it in language even a shitlicking cocksucker like Ken can puzzle out, eventually:


Can't even write a whole post by yourself. What a brainless shitlicker.

J. Croft said...

Passerby, don't be too harsh on Ken. Dude's just confused as to who the enemy is. Happens now and then. I'm sure he's not a complete backstabbing douche.

We're all in this together.

Ken said...

So -- you're refusing to take down copyrighted material you have taken and republished in full on your site?

OK. DMCA notice to the ISP it is.

Just out of curiosity -- are copyright laws somehow tools of oppressive government? Is being a thief somehow patriotic?

J. Croft said...

You pitching a bitch fit because who is supposed to be a fellow Patriot does the honor of putting up YOUR article, CREDITING YOU AND YOUR "POPEHAT"-you going to run like a little snitch bitch to the enemy? I shared what at the time I thought was an awesome piece of advice about contact with the enemy. This by the way is the first time I've had someone shit themselves over the honor. I'd kill to have my work copied, my message sent out. Guess being a libertarian does things to your thought process or something.

Freedom Guide has been my work for God and Country-hell the whole sorry planet-since 2005. Who are you to attack Free Speech? Are you some kind of fed? You must be.

Fuck with my blog and you fuck with me. You fuck with my Free Speech. You fuck with the Freedom Movement, the Patriot Movement-remember what those are? You are a small, small "man"-you and your ten or so groupies.

Do yourself and yours a favor-reconsider and get over it. This is one thing you don't want to do.

And don't ever threaten me again.

J. Croft

JoelKatz said...

Thank you for demonstrating everything that's wrong with self-righteous "patriots".

Michael said...

J. Croft, let me get this straight. You have a blog where you cut and paste what other people write? Perhaps not every post, but you claim you do it "all the time."

Who needs enemies when you've got friends like these...

Anonymous said...

Jcroft- when I said that personally I'd take Ken's advice- I meant TAKE DOWN YOUR BLATANTLY INFRINGING POST.

In no way do I have any idea whatsoever of what you are talking about. Not only are you barking up the wrong tree- you're in the wrong forest entirely.

Please refrain from using my unique name in support of your ideas. Because I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THEM.

Just sayin'.



Anonymous said...

Stealing is stealing. You're nothin' better than goblin bait.

Anonymous said...

It's too bad you're too much of a loser to come up with content other people would want to read but that doesn't justify stealing other people's work.

Now put on your big girl panties and snip the whole post, you whiny little fuck.

J. Croft said...

For a lawyer Ken you sure are fucking stupid... oh wait. You are a lawyer so you are fucking stupid.

Fair use is exactly that; I didn't put my name on your words, and I put a link. You got attribution and I'm not doing this for any money. Go back to chasing ambulances and profiting off broken families you rat fucker.

And this 'anonymous' is a punk.

Seamus Ruah said...

Why is J. Croft such a douchenozzle?

J. Croft said...

'douchenozzle'-what kind of fuckin' dork comes up with THAT?

I still can't believe you dickriders are still obsessed with this post AFTER A FUCKING YEAR.

Time to tear yourself from your computer-you can do it, I know your funky naked hide's about sealed to your chair but by God you got to get up, take a shower... a long shower... okay a very long shower... yep, take that shower and go out into the real world.

The real world, there are actually real world problems out there that need tackled and you should be out there helping out those in need but first you have to get real, get over yourselves, and get that life you always needed.

Copying and proper attribution under Fair Use does NOT constitute theft. Theft would be replacing your pedo lawyer boyfriend's name with mine... which I never did. Hell I had this same argument with a CORPORATION over some video I used in a video and THEY saw the light and backed off...

Ken needs to get over himself. Fuck you and fuck your crusty cunt whore ass mother for not aborting your ass.

Anonymous said...

Hahahaha. Can you say something super mad again? It's fucking hilarious coming from an adult.

Rex said...

I'm not sure what I enjoyed most: the post or the hilarious and ridiculous flame war going on in the comments.

Nevertheless, Ken remains right. Not everyone thinks reposting their content is respectful.

J. Croft said...

You popehat dorks really got nothing better than to comment on year plus old reposts?

Y'know a couple of you have posted your faces as avatars and using that as a guide I must say you might begin to have success socially if you'd:

lose weight
get a life

Might even get laid but even not that crack whore would appreciate if if you didn't smell like you literally live in front of the computer... obsessing because I reposted your gay lover's article after attributing him and linking... I mean, you nerds make a trucker gag.

Anonymous said...

JCroft, your defamatory statements shall not stand whilst mine attorney has the will to fight on!

Charles Carreon, I chose you!

J. Croft said...


You guys are a BORE.

Michael K. said...

You keep throwing around the phrase "Fair Use" as if you know what it means, so you might as well actually know what it means. In order to qualify as Fair Use, your use of Ken's work must pass four specific tests:

1) Purpose and Character: Is your use of the work somehow transformative? Is it critique, parody, news? Does it provide some value that a simple link to the original does not? Verdict: NOT FAIR USE. It's a slavish reproduction, right down to the links and italics.

2) Nature: Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted; only expressions of them. For example, if Ken published his height and weight, there'd be nothing to stop you from publishing the same height and weight. Verdict: NOT FAIR USE. You copied the full expression of the work, every last sardonic and stylistic detail.

3) Amount: Fair Use says that you can, without permission, import excerpts or quotes from a work into your new work for purposes of demonstration and illustration. A book review quoting passages from the book is a good (and common) example. Verdict: NOT FAIR USE. You copied the whole damn thing.

4) Effect on work's value: By reposting this, even with links and attribution, you offer it as a "direct market" substitute for the original, thereby (potentially) driving traffic away from Ken's blog and toward your own, which weakens the work's market value to its owner. Furthermore, the way you posted it kinda makes it look like Ken wrote it for you or your site, thereby making it look like Ken might actually associate professionally with paranoid, establishment-fearing douchebags. Verdict: NOT FAIR USE.

Geez. You'd think such a a self-professed hard-core libertarian would have more respect for individual property rights and ownership of creative output.

J. Croft said...

Wow, this was over a year ago and your panties are still in a bunch... over NOTHING. None of your "verdicts" makes any kind of sense beyond something some shyster lawyer could cook up.

Meanwhile, those of us in the struggle focus on the real issues:

Seattle Cops Retaliate Against Man That Complained About Seattle Police

Or say, 30,000 drones that are going to be armed, at the call of these oath traitors who will have them on call for fire missions.

What do you do? Bitch about me reposting WITH ATTRIBUTION AND LINK your boyfriend's article... over a year old. Dude how fucking pathetic is that?!

I got real shit to deal with, but you and your fellow popehat faggots can't seem to get that life you so desperately need. I mean, seriously isn't this getting hella fucking old?

Go back to fucking your crusty, cunt whore assed grandma.

Michael K. said...

Hey, I'm just trying to help. Words mean things, and when you use them, people judge your ideas according to the words you use to express them. You want to make an argument why it's OK to steal someone else's work? That's fine. But use the right tool for the job. You wouldn't use a stock Prius to drive your militia to your Awesome Resistance Compound, would you? No. So don't use Fair Use to make an argument about appropriation of property in the name of the struggle.

Another example: I'm unclear on what "cunt assed whore" means. I guess I'll have to ask grandma.

(If she doesn't know, I'll ask yours in the morning.)

J. Croft said...

I guess Michael K approves of thug cops slamming 100lb handcuffed women to the pavement repeatedly. Your police state's coming along just fine, bitch.

Michael K also grossly overestimates my opinion of him and whatever he has to say. He should post a link to his blog so I can SCRAPE his work... don't worry I'll put your name and link on as per Fair Use and then I can rip on his ass.

"Awesome Resistance Compound": Michael is a flaming coward who cannot be bothered with putting action behind his words, he'd rather continue stale, year old flame matches to a link only HE gives a flaming fuck about.

Really, Michael K is lying about his crusty cunt whore ass grandma, he knows EXACTLY what that's about and is up in that nightly. You must not need any ribbed rubbers.